Also because the idea that strange creature controling the world?...for a lot of time? just imagine "and yeah we rule the world...the 9/11? or bad,second word war? yeah us too" it will be...problematic
About voldermort, he was pick up aristocrat with a facisist element(that were play up in the movie) and he battle is one with mage, having a muggle down him will be weird, consider that him along can cast more damage than a muggle.
And dont be surprised, the idea of the heros and the villiasn been switch have been use by Marvel and DC a lot, just look all the foils and evil version of superman:general zod,regimen superman,justice lord superman,overman,ultraman,bizarro,black lantern superman, cyborg superman.....yeah.
Also this thread have evoled into a debate about what makes people root for villians and why
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Master Of Malcontent
It's hard avoid doing this for ANY of the factions in Warhammer 40k. I do love Chaos as they are essentially BLACK METAL SPACE VIKINGS FROM HELL. It doesn't get more METAL than that.
One man's heresy is another man's entire way of life
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Noise Marines. QED.
No, the other one.
Isn't W40K basically all empires?
Check out my fanfiction!
Im a thousand sons fan all the way, the space wolfs are designed heroes at best,all is dust...
kind of, the eldar were good boys(or something closer)somgw made them kick the dog,a shame
For some reason, I happen to find the WH40k verse to be quite morally egalitarian yet still diverse, in that fans can choose what kind of remorseless vicious killers to root for, from beastly orks with more dakka, to fanatical commissars charging with tanks in attempt to hit the enemy with their swords, to various monstrosities of every form and flavor.
Speaking of which, here's the ultimate reason for people to cheer for even the most ruthless fictional murderer or genocidal maniac - plain old catharsis factor. When you think about it, half the zombie genre is based around flimsy excuses for people to demolish their neighbors and coworkers with whatever hardware is lying around; or eat their brains with impunity themselves. And the trend of telling elves where they can shove their bows is a testament to how acting or even being morally superior doesn't mean people shouldn't be happy to rip you a new one. Occasionally, that's the entire point. It's just that there are different ideas about what constitutes catharsis in the first place, leading to, well, this very discussion itself.
edited 16th Nov '14 11:46:13 AM by indiana404
Yeah but with the thousand sons is diferent, they were pushed to be evil thanks to tzeetch and its plans and the space wolfs being the pawns of chaos in this cases, I side with them because right now the wolfs have come pretty much karma houdini for a lot of the fans base
kind of, in that case people divorce themselves of the narrative and pretty much dosent care anymore who is who, that is why people like quadrich more: yeah he is one dimensional always chaotic evil, but he is BADASS, he could be a action hero in any other setting and considering how bland the na`vi are aside of gunship girl every other chararter is a fanboy(and the gunship girl dies...) people dosent want quadrich to win, they just want jake and the rest to shup the fuck up
Quite - outside the context of legal justice, stories revolving around good guys beating up bad guys already hinge on likability, rather than actual moral superiority. Herein begin the problems. For one, villain roles are usually given to better and more experienced actors, while heroes are mostly picked for looks - thus, villains win out on sheer charisma and sympathetic performance.
Second, the writers and the audience don't always see eye to eye as to What Is Evil? and deserving of indiscriminate punishment. For instance, as society marches on, the idea of heroically pummeling the mentally challenged has cost Batman a lot of his appeal, with the latest films instead going against ruthless foreign terrorists and internal anarchists... which itself was criticized as him becoming the Patriot Act personified. Even the generic superhero plot about foiling bank robbers is deflated the moment money insurance is mentioned, with the superhero acting as a rent-a-cop for the bank rather than a genuine defender of the innocent.
In general, I get a sense of glurge from any story revolving around irredeemably evil villains set up to be manhandled by self-proclaimed morally upright heroes, solving every issue therein. It sounds too much like scapegoating, with any number of unfortunate implications creeping up. Thus, much how words like crusade or witch-hunt nowadays evoke the opposite of their original meaning, the ideas of heroism and villainy in such stories may be right to be questioned, if not outright reversed.
edited 19th Nov '14 5:02:24 PM by Robotnik
also with avatar, people stop caring about the story because it was cliched and the conflict to one dimensional, since they already devalue the history, they join quadrich becuase is fun, this is bad for a writer because they decided that their story is big an dumb
that is pretty much values dissonance at work, the concept shiff from insanity or crazyness(the idea of a normal men goes mad) to the mentaly ill which is a person who most of the time have trouble to funtion in sociaty
But values dissonace hurts in fantasy works, because lets face it, we dont want our heroes saying sexual or racist slurs, or beliving it was woman fault if her gets assault or that a king have divine right that he can pass to his family, so fantasy history just bypass this into the point you only have typical protagonist who just happen to have a sword, this is why I call "cosplay values" and is a problem with steampunk,heroic fantasy and comic books(to time to time)
And for last, people want their protagonist to reflect them, is the point of cambellian cycles, luke skywalker is pretty much a generic hero with nerd looks, with the villian on the other hand have much freedom, so their is only requests are a) dont be boring b) be evil, this allow much more.
Also if the hero is bland, a hammy villian can make thing better(king scorpion 2 have this issue actually)
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
There's also the way how some writers treat the Campbellian cycle as a paint-by-numbers writing guide, where adherence to archetypes substitutes proper organic motivation and storytelling. Take Mufasa and Simba for instance - the guy has a veritable ghetto festering in his territory that he summarily ignores, and his son is coming up to be a spoiled brat with no sense of responsibility. That's a severe leadership deficiency right there. If not for the contrived fisher king-style coincidence of a drought immediately after Mufasa's deposition, Scar could have ruled well enough for years to come and with plenty of food for lions and hyenas alike.
In general, using entire animal species to fill narrow moral archetypes tends to backfire more often than not. As real life research has shown that lions are far more likely to steal prey from hyenas than the other way around, the irony of presenting the latter as dark-skinned greedy scavengers becomes even more uncomfortable.
Similarly, the fall of the Galactic Republic is attributed to corrupt big-business-backed bureaucrats, with the evil Sith manipulating things behind the scene. In practice, though, any grasp of general economy would reveal the Republic as flawed from the get-go, while the Jedi are ultimately shown to have no clue as to how to deal with internal dissent or emotionally troubled members of the order, which eventually leads to them creating their own worst enemies. There's only so much that can be explained by invoking the Dark Side, before it degrades into an utterly unconvincing magical excuse. My own personal fanon in that regard is that 
both extremes of the Force are inherently destructive, through either violence or forced stagnation .
Consequently, the fact that the heroes never stray from near Black-and-White Insanity in their worldview despite all evidence to the contrary, naturally shifts audience preference to the bad guys, who are at least more honest about their backstabbing powerlust.
edited 20th Nov '14 4:13:26 AM by indiana404
What was the point of this thread again?
To name and discuss examples of villains gaining more fan support than the ostensible heroes? So far, persistent examples include the Galactic Empire and the CIS, Colonel Quaritch, InGen, and Imperial Japan in The Last Samurai. It's just that the topic grew to encompass analyzing just why people would root for the villain in the first place. I don't think it detracts from the central point, and on this site it could even be useful for anyone wishing to avoid some missteps when writing their own characters.
Yeah is becoming a debate about why people root for villians, this is dificult because there are diferent type of villian, mistakes with the writer and something just plain rule of cool or sexy.
With the lion king, we dont know about mustafa except he is good king ans Scar and evil one, also I never saw someone rooting for him so...meh
yoda understand the fact that he was played like a pawn and for that he dosent want to get tanged again, is chararter devopment for him, and about the republic becoming empire, it said more about palpatine that everything else
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
As tragic as all the council being killed was, I'm really tempted to think there was some intentional fan bait in having Stormtroopers, the constant poster child of incompetent mooks, successfully pwning all of them.
I think a lot of times, writers interpret the idea Viewers Are Morons so don't even try. Like for many years, they thought kids would just root for the Funny Animal that was cuter and smaller in slapstick cartoons, no matter who was more antagonistic, hence the constant complaints regarding stuff like Chip And Dale and Tom And Jerry. Sometimes heroism is just a cosmetic to some franchises. You look cute and act self righteous enough, you're good no matter what you do.
edited 20th Nov '14 12:43:22 PM by Psi001
I agree. Particularly in long runners, the contractual guarantee that a given character will be considered heroic by default is often treated as protection from criticism for whatever author tract the current Writer on Board wishes to put in their mouths. Superman is a frequent victim of being written to preach on topics ranging from nuclear disarmament, to illegal alien immigration and civilian self-reliance against heavily armed drug-dealers. Not to mention some writers expanding on his physical god status so as to basically treat him as the actual god of the DCU, dispensing irreproachable moral judgment to anyone within earshot - the DCAU was particularly bad about this. And I'm not even going into Bearded Idiot: At Earth's End or Deadbeat Dad Returns.
Conversely, if not for their obligatory murderous tendencies, a lot of supervillains tend to make pretty strong points, as well as having backstories dark enough to fully justify their worldview. The massive popularity of guys like Loki, Magneto and Doctor Doom is a pretty good example of why it's not the brightest idea to make villains out of perpetual underdogs and persecuted minorities. Unsurprisingly, they've evolved into anti-heroes in their own right, with some comics plainly stating that, among the myriad of bad futures in store for the MCU, a world dominated by Doom is pretty cheerful by comparison. Lex Luthor is an iffier case, in that, to complement Superman above, every decent point he might make is inevitably strawmanned into simplistic hypocrisy - perish the thought that a self-made man risen from the gutter (Smallville notwithstanding) might understandably resent a naturally-empowered strongman benefiting from other people's kindness from birth. Or that suspicion against an alien city-buster prone to going on Brainwashed and Crazy rampages might be a justified rational response rather than veiled ambition.
In general, the very concept of supervillains - as in, people meant to be evil for what they are as opposed to what they do - is pretty uncomfortable when viewed realistically. This very forum had a thread where psychopathy - a rather complex medical condition - was treated as if it was the real life chaotic evil character alignment, which had me be more apprehensive about the guy making the claim itself. Like I said, crusades and witch-hunts aren't what they used to be.
edited 20th Nov '14 3:13:52 PM by indiana404
that is why my favorite superman is superdick from the silver age, it just looks so....happy to screw everyone life that you almost cheer him off
the villian is the nemesis of the hero, he exist to oposed them, so the villian need to hate the heroe so they can fight
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Perhaps. Although, occasionally it becomes a bit forced and self-gratifying. It's one thing if the villains in question are dedicated career criminals, serial killers, or even a corrupt businessman or politician - that's basically a police procedural with flashier fights. However, mad scientists and evil overlords bent on world domination aren't really a fact of life, so they strike me as not much different from the evil atheists and D&D players in Chick tracts - intentional strawmen rather than well thought-out characters. The earlier comics played them mostly for laughs in stories not meant to be taken seriously. Nowadays however, the trend of inventing Freudian excuses for why someone with seven Ph.D.'s would turn to crime rather than get rich on patent royalties (or keep turning to crime afterwards) is getting more and more absurd. What's worse - when coupled with an aforementioned preachy hero moment, the villains are frequently chastised for their irrationally evil ways, which is kinda like not only beating up your own strawman, but acting appalled at him being made out of straw.
To contrast, heroes still going after simple yet relevant mobsters and murderers have no such problems. In fact, the Punisher is a testament to the opposite - the guy was supposed to be a villain, frequently admitting he's no better than the criminals he hunts down... yet the fans loved him for it, so much that he became a hero in his own right, overriding the initial intent.
edited 21st Nov '14 12:21:33 AM by indiana404
I think the opposite. Superheroes are troubling realism-wise. If you gave somebody a nuke (or heat vision) I could well see them become a rel[no] life supoervillain[NO], but not a hero really. Most heroes have their powers explained much more than why they should have superhuman morals. Most people around superman were raised by humans on farms too.
And where I root for the empire is precisely Lex Luthor. When they are essentially also heroes [COMMA]just not as bound. Lex Luthor will someday kill superman, conreol[NOOOOOOO] the world and it might be beneficial to all humans. Having a human impose rules is also much more realistic and personally desirable than having a superhuman set examples.
edited 21st Nov '14 1:20:48 PM by leo235
Other than that, classic pieces of lore such as the Bat-signal, as well as the good old "this looks like a job for Superman" catchphrase, are great reminders of how superheroes would spend most of their lives costume-free, only intervening in serious emergencies. The currently fashionable "all cape, all day" mentality is a very likely reason for why they come off as overbearing overlords, while villains gain popularity as outmatched humanized underdogs.
"the Punisher is a testament to the opposite - the guy was supposed to be a villain, frequently admitting he's no better than the criminals he hunts down... yet the fans loved him for it, so much that he became a hero in his own right, overriding the initial intent."
Am I hate it for it, the reason punisher become a hero(or sort of) is because the principle of paying evil of evil, the idea that someguy is so disgusting that the hero is allow to do whatever nasting thing, it appeal to the "justice by my on hand" mentality, maybe is just values dissonace(venezuela have become on of the more violent countrys in latin america, so the mentality of "shooting tje bad guys" have become prevalent) but Its just....wrong for me
Also if we want to be fair, comic writer already know this weakness so they use chararterization with them, like how luthor call superman THE ALIEN because the idea of somebody so powerfull calling himself a man was insulting, it have a point, even if he say with smugness
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Ironically, the early brutal gun-totting Batman pretty much evoked the same idea - paying evil unto evil. The notion of superheroes as irregular law-enforcers came somewhat later - and it was functional enough when not taken seriously. Nowadays, for that matter, the Marvel capes have basically become openly fielded government agents, with only Spider-Man and Daredevil retaining any semblance of a secret identity. The masks and the men have become one, which I think makes for plenty of complex and interesting stories for all involved.
This is also, however, what DC tries to emulate, only without compromising its classic trappings, and this is where I feel most of the problems stem from. In short, if DC capes are to be marketed as "Gods Among Us"™, then they cannot remain anonymous.
As it stands now, Marvel's Avengers may be a slap-happy frat-house of silly sods, but the Justice League look more like a secretive cabal of superhumans deciding the fate of the world with no oversight whatsoever. Marvel went "all cape, all day" , but they traded in the masks instead. DC did no such thing, so their supers are neither full-time heroes under public scrutiny even in their own homes, nor humble everymen donning the costumes only in extreme cases.
Instead, Batman's become a maniac fully obsessed with finding new ways to torture himself and his adopted companions in the middle of the night, so much that he's going through Robins faster than they're going through puberty. And Superman - well, Superman is deified. Not just symbolically, but even in-universe, he's been stuck with a god-complex the size of a Kryptonite continent, and just as detrimental to his personality and appeal. Put them on an orbital station beyond reproach, and suddenly Lex Luthor seems like the most down-to-earth reasonable authority figure you can bet on, while half of Batman's rogues are more mentally well-adjusted than him.
If I could put it in one sentence, I'd say that a lot of capes have become what they were meant to fight against - self-absorbed violent maniacs and distant, unaccountable authority figures. Small wonder then, that their enemies would eventually be considered heroes in their own right.
edited 21st Nov '14 1:38:32 PM by indiana404
B Ut this are not their fault but the fault of the comic universe as a whole, since status quo is pretty much the overgod of comic universe, neither batman is going to win or gotham is become less bad place already are, so they are both stock in a never ending battle.
Also since heroe and villian have come back so many times, but many civilians dont(really, gwen stacy stay dead for years, same with magento wife, weird it isnt) i come to term that DC and Marvel universes are made just for the heroes and villians.
But since we are getting reallu off topic I will conclued that DC and Marvel flims univers deal with this much better, granted you have loki the draco with latter pants so tight it hurts but overall is pretty good
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Leader of the Holey Brotherhood
You've given a lot of thought to this man. It's scary how easily you can tear down any hero concept and show how they can be seen as arrogant jerks, Smug Super types, or something else.
I've gotten the impression as of late that writing heroes is really hard these days. People seem to inherently like villains more, and this thread and your comments show why this happens.
One Strip! One Strip!
In general, though, Urban Fantasy frequently tends to devolve into simplistic superhero tales with just as little consequence of any claimed superiority over the muggles. The franchise to give us the term itself was ultimately a plain boarding school drama, with wizards largely ending up as ineffectual bureaucrats, further deflating their pretense. As for the grand conflict within - I wouldn't so much as root for Voldemort (even though he's only slightly more fascist than the already segregated and race-obsessed wizarding world), but in tune with the WWII vibe of the story, I would have loved to see the equivalent result. Namely, that the fascist supremacists weren't defeated by the stuck-up aristocrats, but got totally demolished by some communistic anti-magical muggle organization the moment Voldie&co. showed their hoods in public. That would have been a memorable twist.
By the way, speaking of superheroes, Marvel has just released a grand storyline where both heroes and villains have had their alignments completely flipped. We even got Carnage trying to be a hero, and who knows what'll follow. So yeah, it seems rooting for the villains is currently an officially endorsed policy... as if it wasn't already.
edited 30th Oct '14 3:26:38 PM by indiana404